Judge Bars Prevailing-wage Ordinances

A federal judge in California has struck down the ordinances of some San Francisco Bay communities requiring contractors to pay so-called prevailing wages on private construction contracts.

If the decision stands, it will provide a victory for non-union contractors and business groups and a setback for construction unions nationwide.

The case has been widely watched amid speculation that the ordinances, now confined to a few California communities, could be duplicated by municipalities across the country.

Spokesmen for the local governments and unions involved in the case criticized the judge Tuesday for his ``unwarranted interference in the authority of local government to protect the health and welfare of its citizens`` and for his ``pro-business`` stance.

The municipalities and the unions are expected to appeal the ruling, which was issued last Friday but not made public until this week.

Robin Conrad, an attorney with the Washington-based U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which joined with some California contractor associations to challenge the ordinances last December, said they were ``nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt by the unions to drive non-union contractors out of business.``

Last year Contra Costa County and the cities of San Bruno and South San Francisco passed ordinances and resolutions requiring contractors on private projects costing more than $250,000 to pay their workers prevailing per-diem wages.

The prevailing wages for union workers in the area were about double what contractors were paying non-union workers.

Prevailing-wage laws have been applied to federally subsidized projects for 60 years. The California ordinances were believed to be the first to extend the prevailing-wage standard to private projects.

In his 41-page decision, U.S. District Judge Charles A. Legge said the ordinances are pre-empted by two federal laws, the National Labor Relations Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and violated the contract clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

He said the ordinances` prevailing-wage standard ``is an impermissible interference in the collective-bargaining process`` by local government.

He also dismissed arguments by the municipalities and the unions that the ordinances were designed to protect the public safety. They had contended the hiring of lower-paid, unskilled workers by contractors often resulted in workplace hazards and shoddy construction.

``Rather than promoting safety and broad economic goals, or even the timely completion of projects, (the ordinances) are instead economic legislation for the benefit of certain groups, primarily the members of certain unions,`` the judge said.

He said the ordinances ``merely give a public-policy appearance to what is really private-interest legislation.``